[Gluster-users] NFS with UCARP vs. GlusterFS mount question

[Craig Carl]

Anything smaller than 128KB is 'small'.

Craig


On 12/09/2010 11:23 PM, Christian Fischer wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2010 07:12:47 Craig Carl wrote:
>> Christian -
>>       For large files the Gluster native client will perform better than
>> NFS, but they are both good options.
> Thanks Carl.
> I thought nobody will answer ;-)
>
> What are large files from your point of view?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> -->
>> Craig Carl
>> Senior Systems Engineer
>> Gluster
>>
>> On 12/07/2010 11:39 PM, Christian Fischer wrote:
>>> Morning Folks,
>>>
>>> should I prefer NFS with UCARP or native GlusterFS mounts for serving the
>>> system images to XCP?
>>>
>>> Which one performes better over 1G network links?
>>>
>>> NFS is probaby easier to setup due to existing tools like rpcinfo and
>>> showmount, both are used inside the storage container code, and there is
>>> some code for NFS, not for GlusterFS, except I write one.
>>>
>>> UCARP has the disadvantage that the cluster IP is moved away from dead
>>> systems, not from dead gluster server daemons, IMHO.
>>>
>>> What do you think about that?
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Christian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users